Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I've been photography obsessed for over 50 years. Most of those years, change was relatively slow. Cameras progressed and film technology progressed, but significant technology related limitations existed. Over the last few years, rapid advances in digital technology have made almost any kind of photography not only possible, but relatively easy. Want to shoot street at night? ISO limitations are history. Lens limitations? The camera can fix that. Cameras with these capabilities too big and obtrusive? $1,500 can fix that. Other photography related obstacles? Lightroom or ACR can fix that. Left your camera at home? Reach for your cell phone.
Yeah, I know. None of this matters, right? It's the eye of the photographer that's important. The vision of the artist. We've learned from the Internet that there are plenty of people with “vision,” and technology has given them the tools to express that vision easily, cheaply and continuously. I look at a lot of photography. Yes, there is a lot of junk photography out there, but there is a lot of good stuff, too.
This rant was triggered by some amazing nighttime street photography I was looking at this morning. Shot with one of the newest of the wunderkind compact digital cameras, the photos were shot on a very dark night in the city, almost noiseless, sharp, nicely rendered B&W. As someone who cut their teeth on Tri-X pushed in Acufine, this stuff just blows me away.
And then I found another photo set, with over 100 of these nighttime, perfectly exposed, noiseless, sharp, amazing photos from one of the photographer's outings a couple of nights ago. And then I found another. And another.
And I thought, “and then what?” Once everyone knows how the magic trick is done, and once everyone has a shill coin and bang ring in their pocket, the magic is gone.
So, the question is, “And then what?”
Yeah, I know. None of this matters, right? It's the eye of the photographer that's important. The vision of the artist. We've learned from the Internet that there are plenty of people with “vision,” and technology has given them the tools to express that vision easily, cheaply and continuously. I look at a lot of photography. Yes, there is a lot of junk photography out there, but there is a lot of good stuff, too.
This rant was triggered by some amazing nighttime street photography I was looking at this morning. Shot with one of the newest of the wunderkind compact digital cameras, the photos were shot on a very dark night in the city, almost noiseless, sharp, nicely rendered B&W. As someone who cut their teeth on Tri-X pushed in Acufine, this stuff just blows me away.
And then I found another photo set, with over 100 of these nighttime, perfectly exposed, noiseless, sharp, amazing photos from one of the photographer's outings a couple of nights ago. And then I found another. And another.
And I thought, “and then what?” Once everyone knows how the magic trick is done, and once everyone has a shill coin and bang ring in their pocket, the magic is gone.
So, the question is, “And then what?”
f6andBthere
Well-known
Then you go back to 400 film maybe pushed a stop or two and take your chances because a road travelled too easily is often not enjoyed in my experience.
I'm all for these cameras with usable ISO of 6400 and from what I've seen the D4 produces amazingly clean files at 12800 ... bring it on because there definitely are situations where this trickery is very useful and I'll use it when I'm forced to to get reliable results ... for a paying client!
If an average punter wants to go out and use the technology to get images in the streets at night that may have lesser cameras struggling ... that's OK too.
I'm all for these cameras with usable ISO of 6400 and from what I've seen the D4 produces amazingly clean files at 12800 ... bring it on because there definitely are situations where this trickery is very useful and I'll use it when I'm forced to to get reliable results ... for a paying client!
If an average punter wants to go out and use the technology to get images in the streets at night that may have lesser cameras struggling ... that's OK too.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I think the problem is not the technology, but the artist. Someone made a lot of cool looking images thanks to technology, but the images were ultimately empty because he had nothing to say with them. I haven't seen the photos, so I'm guessing here, but that sounds like the problem from the way you describe it. You're seeing the technique, not the 'vision' of the photographer.
That problem is not new. Long before digital, people would complain about all the Ansel Adams wannabes shooting wooden large format cameras, making ultra-detailed (thanks to the big film) images with perfect tonality (thanks to the Zone System) and absolutely no aesthetic value because the photographer had nothing to say in his work.
That problem is not new. Long before digital, people would complain about all the Ansel Adams wannabes shooting wooden large format cameras, making ultra-detailed (thanks to the big film) images with perfect tonality (thanks to the Zone System) and absolutely no aesthetic value because the photographer had nothing to say in his work.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Chris is right.
Lots of those digital trickery shots and series are like a perfect taxidermists job. It looks perfect but there's no soul in it.
Lots of those digital trickery shots and series are like a perfect taxidermists job. It looks perfect but there's no soul in it.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Chris, my concern actually goes way beyond the technology. The technology has, like the Internet, simply made the "problem," if it is actually a problem, more visible.
Before the Internet, we thought a lot of old stuff was rare and valuable. And so that old stuff commanded high prices. When the Internet, and auction sites like eBay came along, we found that most of this old stuff was common, and the same old stuff that was once financially valuable, became almost worthless.
Before the Internet, we thought certain kinds of human resources were rare. The Internet, and the many sites dedicated to the display of photos, have shown us that talent, while not common, is certainly not rare. Which has devalued talent to some extent. With photography, we have a convergence of photo technology and Internet technology that has given the talented both the tools to express talent and the almost no cost means to distribute the works of their talent, while removing the technical challenge (learning the nuts and bolts of photography) as an obstacle. Good photography, just like old stuff, becomes, if only perceptually, less valuable with abundance. And I'm not talking purely monetary value.
I know you, as a fine art photographer, have a dog in this hunt. And while you are hunting in a different forest than I as a PJ am, this stuff ultimately matters to both of us.
Before the Internet, we thought a lot of old stuff was rare and valuable. And so that old stuff commanded high prices. When the Internet, and auction sites like eBay came along, we found that most of this old stuff was common, and the same old stuff that was once financially valuable, became almost worthless.
Before the Internet, we thought certain kinds of human resources were rare. The Internet, and the many sites dedicated to the display of photos, have shown us that talent, while not common, is certainly not rare. Which has devalued talent to some extent. With photography, we have a convergence of photo technology and Internet technology that has given the talented both the tools to express talent and the almost no cost means to distribute the works of their talent, while removing the technical challenge (learning the nuts and bolts of photography) as an obstacle. Good photography, just like old stuff, becomes, if only perceptually, less valuable with abundance. And I'm not talking purely monetary value.
I know you, as a fine art photographer, have a dog in this hunt. And while you are hunting in a different forest than I as a PJ am, this stuff ultimately matters to both of us.
edge100
Well-known
Should we all go shoot glass plate negatives, because film is too easy? Your exact argument could have been applied at any any number of developments in the history of photography: the development of ultra-fast films (ie. 400), built-in light meters, 35mm film, etc. Did any of these things kill the "magic" of photography? Not for me, they didn't. In fact, what they did was allow the vision of some brilliant photographers to shine through.
The technology is meaningless. Yes, it permits shots that could not have been achieved otherwise, but then again: has the world become flooded with Avedons, Adams', and HCBs because of it? Is Flickr teeming with Winogrands and Atgets?
Exactly.
The technology is meaningless. Yes, it permits shots that could not have been achieved otherwise, but then again: has the world become flooded with Avedons, Adams', and HCBs because of it? Is Flickr teeming with Winogrands and Atgets?
Exactly.
Kiev Ilegalac
Established
agree with edge100 100%
Alex
Alex
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
edge100, Avedon, Adams and HCB became famous in a world of photographic scarcity. The question is, if they were starting out as photographers today, would anyone even notice them? Could they economically survived as photographers today? While a lot of folks were snapping photos of the family and vacations then, few had the technical skill do rise to the level many of the "famous" photographers of the time rose to.
I became a PJ in the very early 1970's. There were relatively few of us around then. Because of that scarcity, newspapers and magazines would actually pay us for what we did.
I became a PJ in the very early 1970's. There were relatively few of us around then. Because of that scarcity, newspapers and magazines would actually pay us for what we did.
larmarv916
Well-known
This "problem" is also stalking the traditional art world as well. Digital painting, people spending more time on digital "brush" tools for simulated painting. Copyright issues as people create electronic "derivates" by stealing some ones original art of photo image.
In the end photography becomes a tool where anyone now can generate thousands of images per week. Offer them as "micro" stock or just throw them on the web as photo blog. All just to generate some attention.
In the end all of these "cattle" will die off due to lack of basic internal artistic ability and internal mission that has an honest creative spark. The lack of the cost of film and process is what to the army of creatively blind to keep shooting....shoot long enough and sooner or later you get something good. That is a hold over from the advent of the art directors who in the 70's were demanding motor drives to help give them more creative material from any event.
Now we are facing a situation as unrewarded shooters drop by the way side and digital technology makes even yesterday's new camera...a stone age tool. People get tired of seeing ten thousand shots of the same concept or event.
In the end....I saw a TV commercial for a smart phone the other night. Show again that age old demon....the baby or child photo consumers. "look honey" we don't need to do anything but pick out 2 or 3 frames from "her" whole performance and throw the rest away...isnt this new video great! We can just make prints on our computer..and not have to drive to the photo store!! This really is the root of all evil.
What do we do.....we keep looking for something to say. Think more and shoot less, and in the end the creative content and true artistic quality will show and keep our internal artistic desire alive. In the end the technology is only as good as the person using it.
In the end photography becomes a tool where anyone now can generate thousands of images per week. Offer them as "micro" stock or just throw them on the web as photo blog. All just to generate some attention.
In the end all of these "cattle" will die off due to lack of basic internal artistic ability and internal mission that has an honest creative spark. The lack of the cost of film and process is what to the army of creatively blind to keep shooting....shoot long enough and sooner or later you get something good. That is a hold over from the advent of the art directors who in the 70's were demanding motor drives to help give them more creative material from any event.
Now we are facing a situation as unrewarded shooters drop by the way side and digital technology makes even yesterday's new camera...a stone age tool. People get tired of seeing ten thousand shots of the same concept or event.
In the end....I saw a TV commercial for a smart phone the other night. Show again that age old demon....the baby or child photo consumers. "look honey" we don't need to do anything but pick out 2 or 3 frames from "her" whole performance and throw the rest away...isnt this new video great! We can just make prints on our computer..and not have to drive to the photo store!! This really is the root of all evil.
What do we do.....we keep looking for something to say. Think more and shoot less, and in the end the creative content and true artistic quality will show and keep our internal artistic desire alive. In the end the technology is only as good as the person using it.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
larmarv, I think your "think more and shoot less" is very much a part of my thinking about this. Shoot more "on purpose." Stop picking the low hanging fruit.
edge100
Well-known
There's no question that technology has increased the number of people taking photographs. But it certainly, to my eyes, has not increased the percentage of those who are taking good photographs.
There are a lot of reasons why certain people become famous and others do not, and skill is just one of them. But all other things being equal, yes, I do think that Avedon, Adams, and HCB would be famous today.
Again, I point you to Flickr, which is filled with literally billions of crappy photos, virtually all of which are taken with cameras that are technically capable of output that far exceeds anything that the aforementioned greats had access to (perhaps with the lone exception of Adams, since nothing, to my eyes, has surpassed large format).
And working in relative photographic scarcity was no assurance that a great talent would be recognized in its time. Witness Vivian Maier.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
There is some amazing photography on Flickr. Finding it is the problem.
larmarv916
Well-known
For sure!! It is the low hanging fruit that "art directors" and "gallery" people use as way to twist weak minded artist's of all art disciplines. Also, most people are so awe struck by the ability to just "point and shoot"...they can forget almost any aspect of technical problems. That even 20 years ago would have produced a blank roll of film !
So if someone lack any real grounded artistic internally driven mission...they always come up with hollow results. A real seriously focused artist is always dealing with missing the mark....so to speak. Coming close but not nailing the target, dead on.
The vast majority of shooters that are now just blindly shooting anything, and I do mean anything....and then patting themselves on the back...for god knows why?
I had an art teacher that once said that....A child will never stop scribbling until they want to actually learn to draw. I think he is right.
This whole digital scribbling that now a epidemic on the internet will always be with us in the future. But the public support not.
Film now is like more an art form than ever....how rewarding it is to the artist is internal.
So if someone lack any real grounded artistic internally driven mission...they always come up with hollow results. A real seriously focused artist is always dealing with missing the mark....so to speak. Coming close but not nailing the target, dead on.
The vast majority of shooters that are now just blindly shooting anything, and I do mean anything....and then patting themselves on the back...for god knows why?
I had an art teacher that once said that....A child will never stop scribbling until they want to actually learn to draw. I think he is right.
This whole digital scribbling that now a epidemic on the internet will always be with us in the future. But the public support not.
Film now is like more an art form than ever....how rewarding it is to the artist is internal.
edge100
Well-known
Yes, but I would argue that the percentage of amazing photographs on Flickr is no higher than it has ever been in the history of photography. Technology is not producing better photographers; it's simply permitting more technically-acceptable photographs to be taken. If they were crap on pushed Tri-X, they're crap at 6400 on an X-Pro1.
daveleo
what?
In my mind, it is wonderful that people (who are not even hobbysist photographers) can "take nice pictures" with automatic pocket and purse size cameras. That is not a problem for me.
Now, back to what others have implied so well in this thread . . . as a photographer / artist, armed with the same (hi-tek) tools as everyone else, how are YOU going to put the soul in your work?
Photographers really no longer have the advantage of better equipment (better cameras) and "processing knowledge" (lab skills) to make better pictures. Is that a "problem" or a "challenge" for you?
Now, back to what others have implied so well in this thread . . . as a photographer / artist, armed with the same (hi-tek) tools as everyone else, how are YOU going to put the soul in your work?
Photographers really no longer have the advantage of better equipment (better cameras) and "processing knowledge" (lab skills) to make better pictures. Is that a "problem" or a "challenge" for you?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Relevant/irrelevant TO WHAT?
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Damaso
Photojournalist
Technology will only get you so far. I think what you are reacting to is the ease by which photographers with the right gear are able to capture images that used to take a great deal of technical skill. That doesn't mean those photographs are by any means great. Technical skill was always just one part of what makes an image great. As we see more technically perfect images I think the truly creative images will begin to stand out all the more...
boomguy57
Well-known
I have thought about that too...would the "masters" even get started today?
retnull
Well-known
Yes, this is the key: how much does the photographer have invested in the image? (...emotionally, not financially...) If there is genuine care -- a real engagement with the subject -- it's obvious in the final result.
In general, technology encourages low-investment encounters: a Facebook "like", a quick Tweet, a cell-phone snap...
aad
Not so new now.
Pickett, I am a little surprised at this topic coming from you!
The wide availability of great technology simply means a great amount of junk produced with great technology. How many high-ISO, HDR photos of cats on sofas does the art world need?
What I do see on Flickr are some young photographers who can take the opportunity to explore photography in ways that weren't available to earlier generations. On the other hand, many of the most popular photographers are young girls documenting their lives for a worldwide audience of middle aged men, allowing a glimpse that would otherwise only be available to potential felons.
The wide availability of great technology simply means a great amount of junk produced with great technology. How many high-ISO, HDR photos of cats on sofas does the art world need?
What I do see on Flickr are some young photographers who can take the opportunity to explore photography in ways that weren't available to earlier generations. On the other hand, many of the most popular photographers are young girls documenting their lives for a worldwide audience of middle aged men, allowing a glimpse that would otherwise only be available to potential felons.